Lucky: Love and Hate

New Lucky mag today, which I love. And hate. I love Lucky because their editors find these gorgeous things and present them to you with absolutely no pretense that they are anything other than pretty inconsequential things that give pleasure (that is, they don't have the Vogue disease where everything is Culturally Important). I hate Lucky because their stylists are colorblind pranksters hellbent on playing "exquisite corpse," only with innocent clothes.

I mean, look at this dress above. Nice, right? Great color, elegant lines. Pretty. Maybe I'd leave off the sash, or tie it a little higher for a more empire line, but it's not hilariously wrong.

Now look what Lucky did to it in November:

And this is not even an especially egregious example -- for instance, they didn't decide to do the timeless yes-I-am-insane-thanks-for-asking combo of tailored short-shorts and random-color tights, worn with peeptoe wedges, that shows up about twice an issue; nor did they swag the model in kitschy theme jewelry like a Liberace-themed Christmas tree, as is their wont. They even refrained from breaking out the Boots of Hysterical Unwearability, of which they seem to have an unending supply. (And they did tie the sash higher.)

I tend to rip out pages from magazines if there's a striking image, or if there's something that belongs in my Binder(s) of Good Ideas, and the pages I tear out of Lucky hardly ever feature a living person, unless by chance what has caught my eye is the topmost stratum of all the layers of WTF? that the stylist has aggregated.

And yet I read it voraciously every month. Go figure. Anyway, if you want this dress click on either image; it's called the "Fighting Eel Dress" (why? I have absolutely no idea) and it's $230, which is an awful lot for stretch cotton, especially when you consider Lucky thinks you have to add a completely incongruous tweed clutch handbag (that is itself $200!), and metallic leather pumps. Me, I say you could get away with ankle-strap round-toed flats (yellow would be cute!) and a little denim jacket in case it got chilly, and a maybe a slouchy bag with a wide strap. Although I'm sure whatever casual bag you already carry would be fine. (Actually, Rio's wonderful distressed white leather handbag -- which I marvel at every time I see -- would be The Perfect Bag, but since I can't describe it any better than that I shall pass over it in silence.)

Whew. Next time, I'll rant about the Lucky Breaks, and why I don't consider 20% off a $300 item The Deal of the Century ...

Comments

[Anonymous]

I think "Fighting Eel" is a clothing brand line...http://www.fightingeel.com/bio.htmlI have a love/hate relationship with Lucky as well.--Lydia

[Gemma]

I completely agree with you! I love Lucky for the same reasons - it doesn't take itself too seriously - but they have this knack of (and I'm sorry to quote 10 Things I Hate About You here) mixing genres. They'll put a tiny floaty dress under a mannish sweater and say it takes summer to winter. Er, no. It just looks terrible!And don't get me started on their layering obsession. Less is more, ladies!

[vintagecrochetgirl]

I enjoy reading Lucky Magazine but the Victoria's Secret catalog is sometimes better when it comes to ideas. I mean it!I have to say Lucky has some weird ideas of mixing clothes. They must have so many clothes that they don't know what to do with them. It's like "Hey, that bolero jacket would look good with that bikini. Why not throw in some Uggs while we're at it?"

[Anonymous]

Fighting Eel is the brand name. I have one of their dresses, but I got it at a sample sale for 20 bucks. It is very comfortable.

[oliviacw]

And that whole "steal/splurge" pricing thing. (Lucky's not the only one guilty of this). If the "splurge" is $11.99, $5.99 is not a real "steal". Ditto if the price points are $805 and $459. No, a real "steal/splurge" is $599 versus $59.99, thank you.

[Anonymous]

It's a fairly simple (if slightly sinister) equation: More layers and accessories = more items sold = more $.Hence Lucky's desire to convince the general populace that excessive layering is normal. I recall a recent multi-page spread on "how to dress" -- in which the dominant theme seemed to be "if you're not wearing at least eight layers of clothing, you aren't dressed".

[Anonymous]

this dress`s a symbol of youth 2 me...lotz of colorz...but never for summer...spring,autumn or rainy days...wow....that`ll be cooooooooooooooollll..it should be much more stylish & nerve catching then...pretty cool..liked it..

[itzpapalotl]

I have the exact same dress from Vanessa Bruno. Maybe it's a bit shorter, in mauve wool. It's one of my favourites! I got it on ebay for less than 100 euros.

[itzpapalotl]

I have the exact same dress from Vanessa Bruno. Maybe it's a bit shorter, in mauve wool. It's one of my favourites! I got it on ebay for less than 100 euros.